21 would swing the House. So your original offer is better. Not the odds I usually like, but I'd be the favorite. I'll think about it.

Click to expand...

To be clear, this is not an official offer. Just trying to feel you out, giving a ballpark, looking for possible bets. Any bet between undefeated champions will likely need a lot of massaging of terms before finalization anyways.

To be clear, this is not an official offer. Just trying to feel you out, giving a ballpark, looking for possible bets. Any bet between undefeated champions will likely need a lot of massaging of terms before finalization anyways.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. At this point, I don't have enough information to estimate the odds, but what information I do have (history of mid-terms, special election swings, presidential approval) suggests to me that I'd likely win. But with so much uncertainty, I'm reluctant to commit. As we get closer, I'll either feel more or less confident about a House flip. The GOP has a large built-in advantage (gerrymandering + natural sorting).

I originally probed on it because I've seen a lot of partisans suggest that Democratic losses while Obama was president were indicative of something significant (and, of course, negative) rather than just the normal pattern. Seems like an opportunity for me if people really believe that narrative.

I originally probed on it because I've seen a lot of partisans suggest that Democratic losses while Obama was president were indicative of something significant (and, of course, negative) rather than just the normal pattern. Seems like an opportunity for me if people really believe that narrative.

Click to expand...

My main interpretation is that a big piece of the 2008 Obama coalition was young, unreliable and normally apolitical types swept up by the young, handsome, eloquent half-black guy. To these flaky kids, Obama was a rockstar and worth the time to go vote for---but congressional elections are just so boring by comparison. Frankly, my own partner falls into this category. Add in an energized conservative movement (Obama had just appointed two radical SCOTUS justices and PPACA had recently been signed into law), and you had a recipe for big Democratic defeats.

The calculation will be different in 2018, I have some preliminary analysis but I will keep it to myself.

My main interpretation is that a big piece of the 2008 Obama coalition was young, unreliable and normally apolitical types swept up by the young, handsome, eloquent half-black guy. To these flaky kids, Obama was a rockstar and worth the time to go vote for---but congressional elections are just so boring by comparison. Frankly, my own partner falls into this category. Add in an energized conservative movement (Obama had just appointed two radical SCOTUS justices and PPACA had recently been signed into law), and you had a recipe for big Democratic defeats.

The calculation will be different in 2018, I have some preliminary analysis but I will keep it to myself.

Click to expand...

I think that might have been some of the coalition, but no bigger a part than people with advanced degrees (both small compared to the total). I think he clearly had an objectively superior platform and advisory team. I think it's a little counter-intuitive, but there are signs that he won people who would vote on "social issues" (code word for racial resentment) if there weren't an economic crisis taking center stage. But, yeah, Democrats are less likely to vote in mid-terms in general, and the president's party also tends to do much worse in mid-terms. Putting those things together, you get bad news for Democrats, but no reason to think it's an Obama-specific thing. That second factor will be working against Republicans this time so they'll lose some seats.

Also, side note, "radical SCOTUS justices"? WTF? If you just mean "perceived as radical by Republican mouth-breathers and the Republican media complex," sure. That's part of the reason that the party out of the WH has an advantage.

Also, side note, "radical SCOTUS justices"? WTF? If you just mean "perceived as radical by Republican mouth-breathers and the Republican media complex," sure. That's part of the reason that the party out of the WH has an advantage.

I think that might have been some of the coalition, but no bigger a part than people with advanced degrees (both small compared to the total).

Click to expand...

What counts as an "advanced degree"? For purposes of showing education level, only STEM degrees should count IMO. These are the only degrees that actually require critical thinking to obtain. Moreover, academia outside of STEM is often in direct with "education".

Take as your standard Math/physics/CS/Engineering/chemistry BA/BS and above, all other STEM fields MA/MS and above. I'll guess if you narrow the pool of degrees in this way, the Rep/Dem breakdown wouldn't exceed 39/61.

Well, first whether he is or not is unrelated to the fact that Obama's appointments were not even close to radical. But second, no, I wouldn't say that he's at all radical. Probably about where Scalia was. I don't think radicals really have a chance to through the system (meaning more than just the nomination process, but the whole resume building to get nominated) and on the SCOTUS.

What counts as an "advanced degree"? For purposes of showing education level, only STEM degrees should count IMO. These are the only degrees that actually require critical thinking to obtain. Moreover, academia outside of STEM is often in direct with "education".

Take as your standard Math/physics/CS/Engineering/chemistry BA/BS and above, all other STEM fields MA/MS and above. I'll guess if you narrow the pool of degrees in this way, the Rep/Dem breakdown wouldn't exceed 39/61.

Click to expand...

Haven't seen a breakdown, but I would guess you're likely wrong. And anyway, I fundamentally disagree with the kind of philistine attitude you're expressing and the underlying factual beliefs (like, a philosophy PhD would almost certainly do a better job seeing flaws in an argument and making one than a lowly engineer). Finance and econ get the smartest people on average, I'd guess. History PhDs are probably are more sophisticated with regard to politics than engineers.

That's pre-Trump, too, though there's really no way for the GOP share to go lower.

It's not a coincidence, either. Empiricism is inherently liberal. Think of the different approaches to taxes. "How much do we need to raise; what's the best way to raise it?" vs. "taxation is theft! Progressive taxation is unfair!"

Well, first whether he is or not is unrelated to the fact that Obama's appointments were not even close to radical. But second, no, I wouldn't say that he's at all radical. Probably about where Scalia was. I don't think radicals really have a chance to through the system (meaning more than just the nomination process, but the whole resume building to get nominated) and on the SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

radical

3a : very different from the usual or traditionalb : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutionsc : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change

Kagan fits 3a, certainly. She never even served as a judge. It's been 40 years since anyone joined the SCOTUS without first serving as a judge.

Kagan and Sotomayor both fit b and c. Have you ever read their dissents? The traditional way our courts operate is by applying the law to the facts of a case. It's a very simple and powerful concept. Yet these Justices prefer to twist the meaning of terms like "equal protection" to achieve the outcomes they prefer. The extent to which they are willing to do this is dangerous. For example, see Sotomayor's dissent in Schuette v. BAMN, in which Sotomayor uses extended and tortuous reasoning to claim that the equal protection clause disallows Michigan voters from removing affirmative action from the admissions process of Michigan public universities.

Well, first whether he is or not is unrelated to the fact that Obama's appointments were not even close to radical. But second, no, I wouldn't say that he's at all radical. Probably about where Scalia was. I don't think radicals really have a chance to through the system (meaning more than just the nomination process, but the whole resume building to get nominated) and on the SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

Kagan/Sotomayor/Ginsburg/Breyer's views are so violently opposed to those of Thomas/Gorsuch that if one group is not considered extreme, the other group must be. Thomas and Ginsburg only agree (in part or in full) 62% of the time. That percentage is absolutely awful if you consider what the job of a Justice is supposed to be.